TranquiloUno

I feel like this is probably been talked about before but my cursory googles for "Tactical Combat" and "Combat Tactics" with site:herogames.com/forums didn't produce anything obviously related. Some fun content from 2019 tho... So, my question is, naturally rambly and multipart. Premise: Hero has a pretty sweet tactical combat system. Particularly (IMHO) compared to most other mainstream RPGs. Some of them seem semi-supers specific but then also some of them seem semi-heroic specific. Question 1: What are some of the more effective tactics folks have seen in Hero? Either group tactics, nastily effective builds\combos, or just individual stuff players have some up with? Question 2: What are the most detailed\specific tactics that you have seen or have implemented in your games? Specifically for folks like RDU Neil who run primarily Dark Champions, Fantasy, and other less trad superhero material (or at least that's the impression I've received on the forums). Question 3: What does "tactical combat" mean to you as a gamer? I'd read a bunch of forums and posts on this a while back and "tactical" often seemed to mean: There is terrain (ie, it's not a big empty room or field). There are more than one type of enemy, often mixing modes of attack (ranged, melee, casting). There is some "fighting to the goal" as opposed to my traditional "fighting to win" (ie, you need to stop the sacrifice or escape the air fortress before it explodes, killing everybody isn't gonna do it). To me that...doesn't really seem "tactical". Players might need to create some tactics to address those situations but the tactics (as always: That I've seen, that I see talked about, that seem common, etc) but often it only goes so far as who to attack first\who to focus fire on first. I know KS has a page about some basic tactics in Hero but I was wondering about the rest of you. Particularly for more modern guns n' stuff type games. If this has been discussed before and there's a good link that would be neat to see too.

I ran an actual Street Fighter: The Storytelling Game campaign at one point. Entertaining in it's own way but I'd definitely do it in Hero now. That def seems like an effective setup to get folks to learn the combat rules. Nice genre\rules reinforcement! Depending on point levels I'd think it could be a good setup for getting folks to learn the build rules as well since (I imagine) it'd be more low power and therefore points efficient.

It does help! Thank you! Getting them to player smarter and more tactically is partly what I'm after. So that's encouraging. As for the roleplay\wargame divide...this is less of an issue, for me. To me one of the nice things about Hero is there's this fairly detailed and mechanically balanced tactical combat game there. Other roleplaying games have less tactical complexity and are less interesting, in that respect only, to me, because of that. I'd prefer my players (and ALSO their characters) engage in that more (than they do now) for in and out of game reasons. Out of game: Hero has all these interesting combat options that mostly go unused because folks default to default RPG combat. Hit the biggest thing with your biggest thing until that doesn't work. I'd like them to focus more on those options, to gain greater experience with combats, to promote more varied combat solutions. In game: It's a Combat-As-War type game. We discussed this prior to starting the game so it's semi-foundational to the game I'm trying to run. So the characters should be thinking of things in those terms. The characters are then also professionals. Not just some dudes that wandered in to the village with their father's sword or any of a million other possible setups which are more about character arcs and that sort of thing (nothing wrong with that! nor are those things irrelevant in this game!) which I see in more traditional Combat-As-Sport style setups. Does that make sense? That I'd rather have them shoot-move-communicate (so to speak) in-game? Make and execute specific plans for specific scenarios based on more of a heist-move paradigm than a, "You killed my brother!!!", emotion-and-story-beats kinda paradigm? Like a showdown between The Pumpkin Prince and the Evil Wizard on the Bridge of Shadows while the Nether Portal opens in the background would be cool and stuff. And I'm not against it developing that way. But for this campaign I'd actually happier if the Prince finds out where the Wizard sleeps at night and kills him by filling his room with CO2 by arranging to close the flue on the chimney. A dramatic and standard narrative rising-climax-falling action story would be ok. But, specifically for this game, that's not really what I'm trying to make happen. ...more Black Company\Dread Empire (mostly Dread Empire I'd say) and less Epic or even Standard Fantasy\D&D\LOTR\"Normal" type stuff.

Sure, that's one approach. The normal one, I guess, is my feeling on it. Personally I prefer a slightly stronger relationship between in-game reality and rules reality. While it isn't the standard idea for most games (and probably not interesting to most players and GMs) I feel like the rules should reflect an essential in-game truth where possible. A character might not know he's got "40 End" but he would know that at Speed 2 using a power\spell\thingie that costs 10 End that he's got about 4 uses of that before he'll be exhausted. That kind of stuff. But I certainly agree that rules should equate to an observable in-game reality for the players\characters in some way. Uh. Right. Sure. I *could* do those various things, but, like I was saying, that's not the approach that interests me in this case because...that's the standard normal way to do that stuff and I've done things that way for a long time and...what about some alternatives, you know? So I was interested in seeing about doing it the other way. Giving them the stats straight out and letting them work back from there. In this specific case I was interested in this from both a in-game and out of game perspective. I was interested in what the in-game effects would be on strategy and tactics. I was interested what the out of game effects would be on how players would respond. Sure, also good options. My initial lines of speculation had revolved around trying to relate demon summoning to sacrificed souls in a mechanical way. Like you gotta sacrifice 3 virgins to get a 300pt demon or whatever. 100pts per virgin. So if the players kill Xpts of demons and know that Evil Wizard has sacrificed and captured the souls of Y peasants then they can work out how big\how many demons he can summon using them and make decisions based on that info. But that seemed like, like I think I said elsewhere, a lot of work to double convert game constructs in to in-game constructs specifically for the purposes of trying to get the players to deduce out-of-game rules constructs from that info. I should also say that these players are all new Hero system people. So partly this is a way to get them to look at more stats then their own. Just for general "how does this crazy system work" purposes. You or I, as experienced Champs\Hero ppl, can probably deduce stuff like, "1d+1 RKA...that's weird", but for players that still have trouble finding OCV on their character sheets, specifically as a method to make them engage with rules concepts AND tactical combats, I don't think that will work. Without, like above, doing this weird RPG song and dance where I try to give them the stats, but not really give them the stats, but do a bunch of rules stuff ("He *Haymakers* (that's an out of game rules construct that does more damage) and then he only does 6d (that's an out of game concept you can use to compare to your own characters damage to infer power differences) Normal which seems a bit low based on out of game rule constructs") to basically give them the stats. Why not just give them the stats? Or...what happens if I do? And...has anybody else ever tried this? Or just the normal methods of giving out partial info and relating relative things to other relative in\out of game stuff. Like if a Spd 4 PC fights a Spd 5 NPC. Sure he'll know he's got faster reflexes (might not be true if he's got low Dex tho, rite? ;D) because I'll say, "He seems faster than you!". But also the PC will know he's faster 'cause the NPC will go on Segment 5. So I don't need to tell the player, so he can relate it to in-game character stuff. The player will\can figure that out one his own from in\out of game stuff. That seems fine to me. What I want the player to know is: The NPC is faster (Spd-wise) than you. So either I can tell him the NPC is faster by some unknown (but very predictable in-game) margin or I can tell him he's Spd 5. And if I give him those stats ahead of time then he can make plans based on it. Anyway. Yah. There are loads of ways to relay rules info using just in-game cues. And that's all fine and normal. But...what about doing it the other way? Sure. Or an NPC can tell them. Or they find it in a book. Etc. The VPP size is more inline with what I mean though. If a magical conduit can estimate the power of another magical conduit (which they can via Magesight as I'm playing it (certain levels of it)) then why play coy and be all, "That VPP is bigger than a breadbox, but smaller than a mini-fridge.", when I can just tell them, "It's 40pts"? I understand the various reasons that folks normally avoid doing that. Or at least the most common reasons for folks to say to avoid that. But since I've never really seen (or tried) the reverse approach I can't say if it works better\worse, you know? Like...I *want* them to know it's 40pts. I don't want them to know, "More than you and less than the other guy", because that doesn't seem as useful at enabling specific tactical response or in-game choices. I *want* them to know this thing is a Spd 5. Not, "It's some\much\vastly faster than you". So to me it's less about finding ways "in the fiction" to support giving players partially obfuscated stats and more about exploring the idea of just giving them the non-obfuscated stats and seeing how they can use them to engage in greater levels of planning and developing tactics or other methods to deal with threats that they *know* ('cause they can see the stats) outclass them on a pure points\combat stats\other basis. And even more specifically it's about exploring the idea that it might be more effective, in some ways, maybe, to create foreshadowing by providing stats instead of constructed game encounters that basically act to do the same thing but in a more elaborate manner that, honestly, involves a lot of table time that I'd rather do other stuff with. If it's a 4 hour session and I have to construct a 30 minute encounter where the players gain a bunch of info that I *actually want them to have* but only present it in in-game terms...while expecting them to deduce rules functions from it....maybe I can just give them the stats and do something else with those 30 minutes. Like...have them come up with a plan for dealing with the demon rather than spending time getting info so that...they can come up with a plan. I'm sure that's not super clear. But, to be clear, I'm not uncertain about ways to relate rules stuff in-game, or why folks do that, but more interested in exploring the effects of doing it the other way and looking to see if anybody else has ever really tried this and how it went for them. I *think* the most likely issue is that it might take folks "out of the game" but then the more I thought about it the less that seemed reasonable to me. Because players are constantly switching in-game\out-of-game realities every time they look at their sheet or make a dice roll and nobody seems to feel that is an issue. Would NPC stats really be that much different for them? Or will it be beneficial to enabling certain kinds of game play that I would like to encourage? Generally, as Devo says, "Nobody knows; so let's find out!"

Hey! That was MY example! Subpoint here regarding players already having certain metagame knowledge that I was thinking about is.....I mean, the players already have certain forms of perfect statistical references in games. Specifically their own stats. SOME games do try to abstract away that sort of thing, but generally we accept that players will possess and use a TON of meta-gamey data in play and it never seems to be an issue. Like if I the player am in a scenario and notice the Fire Orcs don't see to be effected by fire damage...does my character have an explicit understanding of damage types and elemental magic and stuff? Or do I as the player instead provoke my in-game character in to thinking, "Oh, this damage type isn't working, we should try switching attacks!" Or when the hydra starts regrowing heads or the troll starts regenerating. Or when a creature is stunned. Or if I can run over there in a "half move". Or knowing that Set will be more useful than Brace in this case. Or that aborting to a dodge might boost my DVC juuuuust enough. And so on. Players already have tons of stats and meta-game info which they keep track of in great detail, while playing, and without it doing much (generally) to impair their ability to enjoy the game, have mysteries, and all the rest of it. Is giving them more stats really going to be the thing that breaks the in-game\meta-game\stats suspension of disbelief? Even existing in-game\meta-game stuff like: Is that real weapon capable of burst fire? Can my character infer things about his in-game flak vest going up against "the most powerful handgun in the world" consistently? Can a character tell the difference from a 10d EB and a 12d EB? How about a 14d EB? And if they CAN do I really want to make them spend time making Per rolls so I can say, "Hmm, yes, that one blast *does* seem more powerful than that other one, and using your own blast as a reference you'd say it's 16% more powerful than the other EB."? Like you're saying about Spd, CV, and def values. Why not just let the players do the math?

This is actually another subpoint I'd been considering: How to imply certain mysteries in the game that would probably only be obvious to players if I pointed them out mechanically. Now this is very specific to my particular game and use case (and should probably go in the Fantasy Hero sub) but in particular how to get players to figure out that a particular demon-summoning evil turd is wandering around with demons that are more powerful than he should be able to control (to say nothing of summoning in the first place)? Like if they know a guy has a 30pt VPP or a "Summon Evil" slot in a MP then they can know he'll be summoning 150pt things and that if he's got a couple 300pt things working for him then...something is weird. Like I was saying in another reply I figured I could try to do this the normal way. Show don't tell the demon. Find other ways from Magesight Per rolls, to KS rolls, to talking to NPCs, to raiding haunted libraries to retrieve ancient texts. Provide in-game guidelines for his stat ranges. But...what about just giving them the stats and letting them figure that out and then use that to help them along with figuring out the mystery of how the chump summoner is pulling greater demons down to do his bidding? Because that's more the mystery that interests me and more the mystery that I'm interested in presenting my players. Not so much, "Can you figure the stats\weaknesses of an unknown in combat while I wail on you?", but more, "Can you figure out why somebody with these stats is summoning somebody with *these* stats?" And similarly present with a different puzzle (I wouldn't call it a mystery) in: How can you beat a creature with unbeatable stats? If getting in to a fight with it and blowing all our best spells will never, ever, work then how do we solve this challenge? That is, basically, to use the stats as a form of mystery\puzzle in the game. But...not the usual way where figuring out the stats is the goal but more in an inverted fashion where figuring out what to DO about those stats is the thing. Plus to encourage explicitly tactical play. For this particular critter for my particular campaign.

Thanks! Sure. And for sure I'm not against the standard way of doing things. It's worked fine for all my prior years of gaming. I was just thinking about it and how it's never been suggested (that I've seen) and what the dynamics of changing that might involve. I think, as you're saying, beating challenges feels good as players (or, just, anybody in life) and figuring out the challenge is sometimes part of the challenge. But also sometimes we can be pretty aware of the specifics of a challenge and still find it rewarding to finish it. Like...I dunno, a college degree, you can plan out exactly which courses you'll take, look up the syllabi for them and know the content, and it would still be pretty cool getting your degree. Just as an example of what I mean by knowing the challenge ahead of time. Probably not a perfect mapping for RPG monster stats and fights tho. Part of my initial reasons for thinking it might be fun to give the players the stats is kinda along these lines. Instead of fudging stuff to get a result what if I told them what to expect so I wouldn't have to? (Was my line of inquiry to myself) Yah, for sure. The in-game fiction justifications for the reasons the *players* have the stats could be varied and supported by the rules themselves for sure. In this instance it's a specific demon\soul harvester that one of the recurring NPCs has access to info on. So the NPC can provide some of the in-game stats of the critter. Which was actually kinda what started me down the path in the first place. It seemed like it might be more work, and less effective in both respects (in-game and outta-game), to have to do double conversions on a set of stats. Like... "This demon is stronger than a horse!" = "Ok, so a horse has a 30 Str, so then thing probably has at least a 35..." "His hide is nearly impenetrable to normal weapons!" = "Hmm, so Armor (only versus non-enchanted weapons) maybe? And maybe 12 rDef so a standard guy with a standard sword will almost always bounce?" "He's twice the speed of a normal man!" = "Hmm...so...Speed 4 then? Or twice the max speed of a human? So 8 Speed? Or does he just mean he runs fast?" "He's vulnerable to god magics!" = "So probably a Vulnerability? But just to specific gods? Or all divine magic? If it's 2x and we can look at his armor we can figure what we'd expect the effect to be.." And I thought maybe I could skip the (standard, normal, totally cool) song and dance of having an NPC summarize things that are game stats so that I could communicate to the players...basically the game stats so they could then make plans based on the description of the game stats that I gave them. Normally all gamers do it the other way and I was curious....why? And what happens if we circumlocute that standard method? Totes. This is what I'd consider the standard method and it for sure works in some\most cases. No real disagreement there. I've done it, I've played for GMs that have done it, etc. But...what about the opposite? It seems very heretical and most of the objections folks have offered have been ones I considered myself. Would it be boring? Would it break immersion for the players? How much is hiding stats really immersing them anyway? That last one in particular because like you're saying with the Monster Manual and D&D 5e even if most players have the stats they aren't likely to actually be tracking them during fights and stuff. But then also if I had a player that was actually tracking what spells and NPC creature has and what spells it has used and what it's initial HP were and what they are not based on reported damage at the table...I would be super-impressed with that player and wonder if tracking all of that improves their experience in some way. Looks like it'll be a couple weeks. Boo. Stupid players and their adult responsibilities! But I'll def let you know.

I mean I'd prefer separate folders for my own convenience but I can sort by file type if needed.

Sure, but what if instead, 5-10 minutes prior to the fight "A Wizard" appears and sez, "Look, bros, you're about to get hit hard by some serious MFers and here's what you need to know to maybe not die...", and lays out those basic bits you've referenced? (and then the GM gives the players the character sheets and says, "Ok! You've got five minutes! Make a plan!") That sort of stuff (what you've listed above) is pretty much exactly the sort of thing I'd like them to be doing. Also and reciprocationally (<- that's probably not a real word) I'd be more interested in the various JSA\JLA\WoO character were targeting the PCs for a reason, also had some hint of their capabilities and maybe even were targeting specific PCs in specific ways themselves. I mean throwing pre-Crisis anybody at a bunch of Fantasy Hero character would be a harsh move. But let's say it was just one, just Alan Scott. And while the *players* might have the full stats the *characters* only know in-game stuff like: his foul magics don't work on specific forms of plant matter, he can create a variety of effects but they'll all be coming from his ring of twisted emerald necromancy, and while they can expect he'll have up Force Walls and Forcefields and whatever else that he's ultimately just a man behind all that evil magic and can be tricked, trapped, hurt, and killed like anybody else if they can find ways to get passed his specific defenses and find ways to survive his More-AP-Than-You-Get blasts and TK.

So my follow up would be: Since it seems like nobody has tried this (I haven't yet either!): What do you see as the downsides? Just a lack of mystery\suspense? Meta-gaming\breaking the fourth wall\fiction? (this was my main concern) Ability to GM fudge some Stun\HP\Bod\End\Charges\CV to make things more cinematic and interesting? Just...not how things are done? I'm thinking of things like D&D by comparison. When my squad of dudes winds up fighting some Orc...I personally don't have the Orc stat block *memorized* but I do have a very good idea what to expect. So it's not like the stats are fully on display, but also...basically I know the stats. Or if say: There's a Wizard: The PCs can make plans for that general case. If I say: There's a 5th level Wizard: The PCs can make plans for the one big spell, maybe arrange a strategy around mitigating that. If I say: There's a 5th level Wizard and he's got Fireball: Then they can make more detailed plans. If I say: There's a 5th level Wizard, with Fireball, and he's immune to fire, but vulnerable to electricity: MORE detailed plans. Maybe they can do try to find a way to do electrical damage. Find a way to get a Flame Protection Potion. Have somebody save a phase to make sure they'll be able to counterspell. Basically the idea that Hero is a very tactically complex game (or can be) and so providing more info the players allows them to create more complex plans, tactics, and specific strategies and then try to execute them. Not that they can't make those kinds of plans already, but by directly giving them the stats you've given them agency to begin using them and empowered them to make more specific and effective strategies and tactics. MIGHT be fun. I dunno about MORE fun than the traditional way, but...seems weird to me that I've never, ever, seen it suggested. Always the opposite. So is that frame shift valid? Will something bad happen to game play if the PCs have UberNPCs stats in front of them? If my 5 350pt heroes are going to fight Dr Destroyer and I give him their stats does it change the outcome from my just doing all the GM foreshadowing to imply\state, "This guy is some top tier ass-whuping!"? Partly I ask because while I'm familiar with the standard advice when I think about my own experiences as a player...I'm not sure it's...right? I don't know that I've felt increases in narrative tension because I don't know the stats of something. But I do know that I've been in plenty of dull, or just routine, combats using the standard methods. Never seen this one tried. I mean...it's effectively been tried in wargames and similar. And those can all still be fun, and tense, and actually kinda improve your tactics in some ways. Like if I know I'm fighting Skaven then I know there might be an assassin hidden in that unit of infantry, so I avoid charging it with my general right off (if anybody is in to Warhammer Fantasy Battle) for instance. If I just know, "Skaven have assassins", then I'm much less likely to avoid doing that. Right? Does more PC knowledge produce more better or more interesting preplanning?

That's what I'm trying to encourage though. Rules analysis. KNOWING the thing (it's a demonic hellbeast type critter) is vulnerable to certain types of magic (which the players don't have currently) knowing how it's attack will effect the players animal companions. Knowing it's OCV\DCV so they can figure out if they should put all levels in to DCV or if they should just run like hell when they see it. All that kind of thing. The creature in this case would probably stomp them fairly decently if they were to encounter it unexpectedly and tried to engage it in the typical "fantasy RPG" mode. So I wanted to warn them, but felt that concocting a whole scene around it would be a bit contrived and not really (mostly likely) fit the plot\NPC behaviors. Like if you've got a Fighter and Rogue and a Druid and you know you're going to be fighting a liche with AoE firespells...what's your plan? If you know they are slow maybe you can stick and move and harass at range. Or try to recruit a Cleric or other anti-undead type. If you know they've got a NND (Defense is self-contained breathing) then you can try to find some way to mitigate that. If I just tell them, "it's a Gorgon, it's got poison breath", then their ability to actually plan for that it reduced, even though they still know it's got poison breath, heavy armor, and whatever else (horns and charging if we're adapting a D&D gorgon I guess). That kind of thing. Enabling planning by giving them actual info to plan with instead of making (particularly as Hero newbies) them make semi-educated guesstimates. The other way (concealed stats) is pretty classic and works in most cases and has worked fine for me for years. Just wondering about the reverse if anybody had tried it. Sounds like...not really?

Yes, so this is kinda the crux of it: Why would you be hesitant to go further? What is the bad thing or sub-optimal result that would make you hesitate? Is it just tradition at this point (more generally in RPGs, not you specifically)? Does it really enhance the game?

Oh we're definitely trying it out! Just curious to see if anyone else had ever tried this. I'd say...probably, like, ALL of the GMing advice and tips I've ever read run counter to that. Hide the stats so you can fudge the numbers. Hide the stats to build mystery and threat and uncertainty. Or maybe kinda hand wave the stats to get the right in-game effect you're wanting. Like if a fight is supposed to be TOUGH then you make it TOUGH regardless of what the players (or NPCs) roll. All that kind of thing. Never see, "Give the players the stats so they know just how screwed they are".

This is for Fantasy Hero. I've got a mechanic for using Magesight to estimate APs in various ways already, but that's more for active use of magic, and not so much determining the power of summoned soul harvesters and more passive threat detection. What I'm wanting to do is give them the stats ahead of time so they can plan an intricate (as intricate as they'd like) way of countering the threat. Which I think will work better if they have the actual stats to compare to their own. It's pretty meta-gamey and breaks that there 4th wall. Interested to see how it turns out. Given the typical gaming secrecy that surrounded NPCs and GM controlled folks I was curious to see what happens if that gets inverted.

Like just straight up given them the write ups? How did it effect things? I know all the typical "good GM advice" is all around "show don't tell" and creating atmospherics and such but given the complexity of Hero I was thinking maybe just giving the players the stats would be a more effective way to actually communicate threat levels for newer Hero players rather than play a song and dance game of trying to imply and foreshadow things they might not understand in any case. Any one tried this?

You might try using the example characters in the book for your initial combat testing. You've got the big blue book? Or which version of the 4th edition rules? They should all have a few example super team members in them. You don't need a hex map, you can do "Theatre of the Mind" like any other game, each hex\inch = 2 meters. Yah, running a very short and simple scenario using the example characters in the book (or any of the various 250pt\350pt builds multiple folks have linked) seems like a better place to start. You can look things up as they come up and while it'll take a while it should be a bit more efficient than starting with close melee and working out from there. I mean obviously whatever works best for you for learning new RPG systems is what you should do, but for Hero I think you can start with example characters, go over skill resolution real quick, then start at the start of combat (speed chart) and then go to movement and melee\ranged attacks at the same time. Mostly follows the layout of the combat section. The books usually have a pretty great index too. So you can kinda go until you get stuck, check the index, get unstuck, etc. Or ask questions here! Hero ppl never tire of trying to explain Hero.

Granted these are 350pts but Hyper-man from these forums has a bunch of good write ups for the JLA here: http://www.killershrike.com/MiscCharacters/Contributions/Hyper-Man/Supers/JLA/WriteUps.aspx You might use them as references even with the point discrepancy. Also I think deliberately pegging your Spd and Dex to match the test enemies is...I mean, sure, fine, but it's not really a good way to build to the Superman concept.

So, wait, no flying? No enhanced senses? Not even X-ray vision? Hero system can simulate more powerful versions of Supes just fine. Just need more points. The thing about building kinda "blue sky" Heroes characters is they are fairly meaningless without a set of campaign guidelines to go along with it. 100 Str might be too high. 4 ED is definitely too low (yes, you buy both defenses separately and keep in mind Energy Defense is things like laser blasts and whatever). 50 PD is probably too high, particularly with 50% Damage Reduction. But since those are all relative to the other characters\NPCs in the game they might be too low, or not high enough.

Boringly I'm basically like everybody else. Maybe even slightly more stingy. Most PCs should be at 2, except for fightin' types, who can be at 3. I'd let somebody buy theirs up to 4 with XP but not higher (unless somebody wanted to make a Haste type spell). NPC schmucks are 2s and elite badass NPC schmucks are at 3 and the occasional, "he's, like, really agile, you guys", types are a 4. Only one of those has shown up so far. I'm wanting to keep the range pretty tight just for simplicity. If somebody was all hot to play a Monk\other archetype that's known for being fast I probs be fine with it. Depending on the rest of the stats and all that.

Totally! Just so. It doesn't map to genre fiction, it doesn't map to reality, but...there it is. The only one I'm really aware of (I'm SURE there are others out there) is the Malazan Books of the Fallen. Characters in those novels do indeed vastly and sometimes rapidly increase their power over time. But it's more story driven than, "You killed some scrubs, now you're more powerful!". It does very much seem like convention (certainly in D&D\EQ\PF\etc) but I think it's more the first formalization of how progression works. I mean honestly the Hero model doesn't seem to conform to genre fiction or reality either. I kill some Orcs and then buy Stealth with the XP? How does swinging a sword in a dungeon increase my sneakiness? Or I sneak around as my rogue-type to get 5xp (over time) and then my Strength doubles (in terms of weight lifted) when I spend XP on it? I think Killer Shrike and others have rules for only being able to put XP in to skill if you use them, succeed\fail with them, something like that. Certainly other games have those mechanics. But all that goes back to the: "Well...how do YOU want progression to work in THIS game?", stuff that Hero does so well.

As a math guy what was the general effect of this change in combats? I take it from the timespan of usage that it produced beneficial effects? Can you characterize them? Or did they go hand-in-hand with other stun lotto mitigations?

Yah...I too think it's a neat idea and feel that modelling the pain vs. damage vs. dramatic gameplay\genre emulation aspect of RPGs is still a thing that's pretty rudimentary in most games. Lots of room for improved realism, "realism", and more functional ways to divide the whole thing up and get it sorted. But I also think it's more bookkeeping than I'd personally want to deal with and feel the default system is just fine for my purposes. Also makes me wish Champions Online had implemented the actual Hero System rules so we'd have a sweeeeeet online platform to run hex-based Hero games normal-style but with unlimited tiny rules mods like this one that you could plug in and get the computer to track for you.

My condolences to you, sir! ;D Sometimes I read PF build op threads until my eyes glaze over (about a page) just to get a sense of the madness that is Pathfinder plus splats and whatever else they have (I've somehow managed to dodge actually playing that one myself). A lot of the times it reads like Palladium\Rifts material to me with all the prestige classes this and feat chains that and classes I've never heard of (Eidolon?). I think it's really pretty cool in an inapproachable and I-never-wanna-play-that-one way. ;D Funny, of course, as it relates to the thread topic. D&D and it's sibling-descendants are practically THE model for how all TTRPG characters should grow and mature in a game (by virtue of existing first) and they've had years and years and edition after edition to do things with them (remember how AD&D had a second mini-game within when you hit higher levels and started attracting followers and such?) and yet....even the granddaddy of standardized, "balanced", game-integrated character progression....still kinda sucks at dealing with the cumulative effects of character progression on the base game.

Another thing I think might be worth mentioning is that, particularly in comparison to that lumbering behemoth D&D, in Hero you can directly control the levers of power. In D&D when you level up you get discreet things. Which are all probably good and happy and fun, but the main thing is you don't choose them. When my Wizard hits level 2 I get more spells. In Hero when I get more XP...do I even need more spells? Do I want them? Maybe I should just buff up my Power Bolt 'o Doom more and put more in +OCV with Power Bolt instead of concocting another spell that's...not really my thing ("Prismatic Spray or Entangle? Hmm...but I'm a Fire Mage...."). In D&D I don't have that option, so I don't think about it, so the game never has to deal with it. Happily....Hero ain't like that. But instead I gotta deal with figuring out where the game is headed in addition to figuring out what game I wanna run (AND actually running the game too). Similarly some things get better for free as you go (in D&D again, but...I do think it's the standard against all others are measured). My Fighter doesn't need to decide if he needs more to-hit or more hit points. He gets both. My Wizard doesn't need to decide if I should bump Magic Missile damage or buy another spell. He gets both. So the progressions in other games are both usually limited by the pre-built progression mechanics (increasing costs for increasingly increased abilities) and also by lack of access to the stuff you might actually want to buff up. But mostly I don't think it's really something a lot of games deal with well or spend a lot of time on. D&D, again, in some editions, rapidly becomes nearly unplayable at higher and higher power levels as the spells and items accumulate, but that often seems to be more accepted as a feature rather than a bug.

Tangential to YOUR point I do wonder if in fact this isn't the issue. Class\level progressions are so darned standardized in the gaming mindset. Power progression, enemy progression, spell progress, MORE AND BETTER MAGICAL ITEMS, all of that. Most other games (CoC, WW, SR GURPS) revolve around pre-provided lists of advancement so that even though you aren't improving everything all over all the time (like the archetypal D&D standard) you are only improving discreet and pre-defined aspects of existing rules. So where you are still "spending XP" like you do in Hero the things you spend it on are....kinda prebalanced and limited and the XP progressions themselves usually limit things. In Hero I can buy +1 OCV ("to-hit") for 2pts. And then another for 2pts. And then still another for 2pts. In WW or SR (the older editions which I'm familiar with) the XP costs scale as the thing being improved scales. So my guy with the +3 OCV (equivalent) would pay 4pts for his +4, then 5pts for his +5, and so on and I don't know why I'm explaining this really, we're all gamers here and I'm sure the point I'm making is evident already, but...because of that increasing cost (and often a top level cap as well) XP spend balancing isn't quite the chore it can become in Hero. In Vampire (for example) I can boost my weak skills and stats for cheap, but if I want to continue to pump my already top-line combat stuff I'll reach diminishing returns and start to incur some serious opportunity costs. Should I leave my weak spots unprotected so I can continue to pump my main ability for marginal increases in utility? Or should I shore up weak spots because my XP dollar goes farther? Hero doesn't (quite) have that same dilemma. But, wait, then, the other thing: The ideas of what progression means are all built in to those rules\settings. Hero doesn't have that..."problem". Like most stuff in Hero the GM\players get to do all that work and I think there's a lot of emphasis (for reasonable reasons) on initial setup, initial concept, and, of course, CHARACTER CREATION, and then also, how you want to play the game (Wounding? Impairing? Hit Locs?) and so on. Which is fine. And good. And very Hero-ey. But it kinda leaves that whole entire "What happens after chargen\session1" stuff...well...also up to the GM\players also to decide and that's something that...I mean, really...do most games ever touch on this? Like D&D..you fight things, you get stuff, you level up, WIN!!! That's the game!!!! White Wolf stuff is the same, you make your tragic vampire, you do your tragic vampire stuff, you get XP! There's no real discussion in most games about how the progression works out, or is supposed to work out, or, generally, any end-state at all (hitting 20th level in D&D maybe) and since the "how should stuff progress?" question is handled by the rules, in an indirect way (the answer to the question: How does it progress? Being: Well instead let me just tell you what\how you can spend XP on....) then...nobody ever has to address it. Hero often seems oriented around the idea that, "You can make ANYthing!", and spends all it's time on making the thing, rather than what happens after ("Whatever you want, maaaan!").